# So wha does this mean for pipe tobacco?



## doublebassmusician

*No smoking: Historic vote could bring new limits*

*New limits on smoking ads, flavors, nicotine could follow historic congressional votes *


Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer
On Thursday June 11, 2009, 4:57 pm EDT

 Buzz up!
Print
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate struck a historic blow against smoking in America Thursday, voting overwhelmingly to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in the cigarettes that kill nearly a half-million people a year, to drastically curtail ads that glorify tobacco and to ban flavored products aimed at spreading the habit to young people.

President Barack Obama, who has spoken of his own struggle to quit smoking, said he was eager to sign the legislation after minor differences with a House version are worked out -- and the House planned a vote for Friday. Cigarette foes said the measure would not only cut deaths but reduce the $100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco.
Fierce opposition by the industry and tobacco-state lawmakers had prevented passage for years, along with veto threats by the George W. Bush White House. In the end, the nation's biggest tobacco company supported the measure, though rivals suggested that was because it could lock in Philip Morris' share of the market.
Cigarette smoking kills about 400,000 people in the United States every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 45 million U.S. adults are smokers, though the prevalence has fallen since the U.S. surgeon general's warning 45 years ago that tobacco causes lung cancer.
The legislation, one of the most dramatic anti-smoking initiatives since the surgeon general's report, would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the content, marketing and advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products.
"This legislation represents the strongest action Congress has ever taken to reduce tobacco use, the leading preventable cause of death in the United States," declared Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids.
The 79-17 Senate vote sent the measure back to the House, which in April passed a similar but not identical version. House acceptance of the Senate bill would send it directly to Obama, who said Thursday that final passage "will make history by giving the scientists and medical experts at the FDA the power to take sensible steps."
"At any given moment, millions are struggling with their habit or worrying about loved ones who smoke," said Obama.
His signature would then add tobacco to other huge, nationally important areas that have come under greater government supervision since his presidency began. Those include banking, housing and autos. Still to come, if Congress can agree: health care.
Supporters of FDA regulation of tobacco have struggled for more than a decade to overcome powerful resistance -- from the industry and elsewhere. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the agency did not have the authority under current law to regulate tobacco products, and the Bush administration opposed several previous efforts by Congress to write a new law.
Thursday's legislation gives the FDA power to evaluate the contents of tobacco products and to order changes or bans on those that are a danger to public health. The agency could limit nicotine yields but not ban nicotine or cigarettes.
Regulators could prohibit tobacco companies from using candy or other flavors in cigarettes that tend to attract young smokers, and restrict advertising in publications often read by teenagers. Rules on sales to minors would be toughened, as would warning labels. Tobacco companies would have to get FDA approval for new products, and would be barred from using terms such as "light" or "mild" that imply a smaller health risk.
Costs of the new program would be paid for through a fee imposed on tobacco companies.
"This is a bill that will protect children and will protect America," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a leading supporter. "Every day that we don't act, 3,500 American kids -- children -- will light up for the first time. That is enough to fill 70 school buses."
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that FDA regulation could reduce underage smoking by 11 percent over the next decade.
The bill, said American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown, "provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults."
The tobacco lobby, contended Durbin, has long been the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, "and they managed to create an exemption in virtually every law so that no federal agency could take a look at them and regulate them."
But the industry has also taken hits in recent years as the dangers of smoking became more apparent and states moved to limit smoking in public places. In 1998 the industry agreed to pay the states $206 billion to help cover health care costs, and this year Congress raised the federal cigarette tax by 62 cents, to $1.01 a pack, to fund a health care program for children.
The nation's largest tobacco manufacturer, Philip Morris, USA, has come out in support of the legislation. Its parent company, Altria Group, said in a statement that on balance, "the legislation is an important step forward to achieve the goal we share with others to provide federal regulation of tobacco products."
Its main rivals, however, have voiced opposition, arguing in part that FDA restrictions on new products will lock in Philip Morris' share of the market.
Lawmakers portrayed the bill as a major first step in bringing down health care costs, an essential goal of the health care overhaul legislation that is the top priority of the Obama administration this year.
"This bill may do more in the area of prevention, if adopted, than anything else we may include in the health care bill in the short term," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who managed the legislation on the Senate floor in the absence of the ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who has long promoted FDA regulation.
Opponents, led by Republican Sen. Richard Burr of the tobacco-growing state of North Carolina, argued that the FDA, which is in charge of ensuring the safety of food and drug products, was the wrong place to regulate an item that is injurious to health.
He also contended that the bill would restrict tobacco companies, including several based in his state, from developing new products that might be less harmful to users. He unsuccessfully proposed the creation of a new agency that would both regulate tobacco products and encourage efforts to make cigarettes less harmful.
The bill is H.R. 1256.

No more flavored pipe tobacco???


----------



## CaptainJeebes

i just read this on USA today... I hope this means flavored pipe tobacco isnt gone. there are a lot of good stuff out there..


----------



## strider72

Be sure to thank the socialist SOB's. What are they gonna pry into next... How much sugar/caffeine/flavor you can have in your coke?


----------



## Mr.Lordi

If this is the right bill my local tobacconist was talking about, then no, it doesn't effect pipe tobacco. Just cigg's and cigars.

Basically, no more white owls...which might not be a bad thing. lol!


----------



## squeeze left

Fundamentalist do-gooders at work.


----------



## dajones

"Protect the children?"

I thought that was Mom & Dad's job...

Silly me.


----------



## commonsenseman

Holy crap this makes me mad!  
Stupid morons trying to regulate every aspect of our lives! 
Leave my tobacco alone!


----------



## dajones

Folks at the tobacco shop were confused too, noting that many (most) tobaccos qualify as "flavored" (as do menthol ciggies, really)


----------



## afilter

dajones said:


> Folks at the tobacco shop were confused too, noting that many (most) tobaccos qualify as "flavored" (as do menthol ciggies, really)


I have not been been able to get a consistent answer on this subject. I even e-mailed one of the major online sellers and they were not sure how this was going affect them. Very frustrating. I consider myself a casual smoker and plan to start squirling away several tins of my favorites as well as cigars just in case. hwell:


----------



## DSturg369

From what I've read and have been told, menthol cigs will be exempt on the grounds that 75% of the black population smokes them. 
Pres O-damn-a smokes Marlboro Menthols. Big surprise huh?

As for pipe tobaccos, it's anyone's guess as to what will happen. I just hope that there are a few pipe smokers on the committee that decides this crap.


----------



## dajones

To the censor-sniffers: I am sure that what the poster above *meant* to write was that of *course* Our Dear Leader should not be infringed in any way...

BTW: to the future health-care aparatchik: I do not smoke, I merely like to talk as if I do...


----------



## plexiprs

dajones said:


> To the censor-sniffers: I am sure that what the poster above *meant* to write was that of *course* Our Dear Leader should not be infringed in any way...
> 
> BTW: to the future health-care aparatchik: I do not smoke, I merely like to talk as if I do...


Screw the censor-sniffers,
Screw our "Dear Leader,"
Screw Federalized Health Care and any other socialist/communist enterprise foisted upon the brain-dead MTV, iPod, iPhone generation. My god (any god) have mercy on our souls .....


----------



## DSturg369

If that mentioned "poster above" was me..... I said what I meant and meant what I said. All this "PC" crap be damned.


----------



## plexiprs

DSturg369 said:


> If that mentioned "poster above" was me..... I said what I meant and meant what I said. All this "PC" crap be damned.


Hoo yaa!!


----------



## commonsenseman

Way to go sturg!


----------



## dajones

Uh, you *do* realize I had the sarc on, right?

/sarcasm


----------



## DSturg369

I knew that, as I had on my "pot stirrer" cap. I seem to be wearing it a lot lately.


----------



## dajones

So, the Peretti guys are not yet worried... they figger it'll take a while to figure out what the legislation means (cuz, o' course, Congress has no clue), then the wranglin' will begin, and the lawsuits and lobbying...

That said: I *do* fear encroaching nannyism.

I was watching Chitty Chitty Bang Bang last night with the offspring: they noted how dangerous it must have been for the two children in the movie to live in the windmill/laboratory...

I also watched Mel Gibson's "The Patriot," where he encourages his young sons to fire upon (and kill) approaching redcoats...

The times they are a'changin' (or, well, changed, I guess).


----------



## commonsenseman

dajones said:


> That said: I *do* fear encroaching nannyism.


The "Nanny-State" IS on the rise, and we're the bad guys.

After all, it's for the children.......


----------



## afilter

It may or may not be a result of legislation, but I have noticed some brands seem to be out of stock and retailers are not sure when they will be back.


----------



## dajones

I rather doubt anything has taken effect yet.

The point: you ain't seen NOTHIN' yet... Gonna be bad, an tobacco is only the smallest part.


----------



## afilter

dajones said:


> I rather doubt anything has taken effect yet.
> 
> The point: you ain't seen NOTHIN' yet... Gonna be bad, an tobacco is only the smallest part.


I think some are stocking up in anticipation of the worst...they beat me to it. Of course we will be required to submit an inventory of eveything we own.


----------



## commonsenseman

This sounds like "1984".........scary.


----------



## dajones

commonsenseman said:


> This sounds like "1984".........scary.


Elements of 1984, but p'raps more like Brave New World (in which society itself, not the gummint directly, becomes the conforming force).

And don't forget Harrison Bergeron (for you egalitarians).:ballchain:


----------

